similar to: DMARC test (request)

>I wonder (please forgive my ignorance), whether there would be any >change/improvement if the "Reply-To:" and "CC:" fields would be >interchanged (back) from the current behavior (since March 2014 or so, >http://www.syslinux.org/archives/2014-March/021895.html ). Perhaps >Hotmail (and family) would accept these (Yahoo-originated) messages >then? AFAIK if the

> On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 8:18 AM, Patrick Masotta <masottaus at yahoo.com> wrote: > > Hi Gene: > > Everything that comes from the list goes to my spam folder > > because the message looks as spam to yahoo. > > A simple filter resolves this: > > Deliver to "Inbox" if > To/CC contains "syslinux at zytor.com" > > > why is

> As per > prior discussions, the "From:" field should remain > with the > original sender. One (important) > reason is that frequent participants > in the > Syslinux Mailing List tend to use the "From:" > field, for > instance as search filter. Well I consider the search filter by subject is a much better approach, for participating on a

On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Patrick Masotta <masottaus at yahoo.com> wrote: >> As per >> prior discussions, the "From:" field should remain >> with the >> original sender. One (important) >> reason is that frequent participants >> in the >> Syslinux Mailing List tend to use the "From:" >> field, for >> instance

On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 8:18 AM, Patrick Masotta <masottaus at yahoo.com> wrote: > Hi Gene: > Everything that comes from the list goes to my spam folder > because the message looks as spam to yahoo. A simple filter resolves this: Deliver to "Inbox" if To/CC contains "syslinux at zytor.com" > why is not the list sending the message as coming from the list

Hi Gene: Everything that comes from the list goes to my spam folder because the message looks as spam to yahoo. why is not the list sending the message as coming from the list e-mail account???? that's why Yahoo flags the messages as spam... Thanks, Patrick > Due to Yahoo!'s DMARC, you > probably didn't see the other two tests I > already sent as I didn't see this

On Sun, Jan 04, 2015 at 07:37:44PM +0100, Geert Stappers wrote: > On Sun, Jan 04, 2015 at 12:14:51PM -0500, Gene Cumm wrote: <snip/> > > As far as I can tell, GMail does process the SPF/DKIM/DMARC properties > > but ignores Yahoo!'s DMARC policy to reject on failure. > > The Syslinux ML should now be ready for DMARC p=reject > > We shall see how

On 2/9/19 10:48 AM, Juri Haberland via dovecot wrote: > On 09/02/2019 10:44, Aki Tuomi via dovecot wrote: >> For some reason mailman failed to "munge from" for senders with dmarc policy ;( >> >> It's now configured to always munge to avoid this again. > > I'd say, let Mailman throw all people off the list that have enabled DMARC > checking without

On Sat, Jan 17, 2015 at 12:56 PM, Patrick Masotta <masottaus at yahoo.com> wrote: > >If 1 person with a yahoo.com e-mail adres does reply on this >> message, >> then we have test result for the setting that was changed >> wednesday. > > test Patrick, Due to Yahoo!'s DMARC, you probably didn't see the other two tests I already sent as I didn't see

>If 1 person with a yahoo.com e-mail adres does reply on this > message, > then we have test result for the setting that was changed > wednesday. test

In the same vein, I am receiving forensic DMARC reports from mx01.nausch.org. Whenever I send a message to the mailing list or when my server sends a DMARC report, I'm getting a DMARC Forensic report. It's odd, because the actual report tells me both DKIM and SPF (in the the of a DMARC report) pass... Here is what I am getting : This is an authentication failure report for an email

> On Saturday, January 17, 2015 9:34 AM, Gene Cumm <gene.cumm at yahoo.com> wrote: > > On Saturday, January 17, 2015 1:48 AM, Geert Stappers <stappers at stappers.nl> wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 04, 2015 at 07:37:44PM +0100, Geert Stappers wrote: > > > On Sun, Jan 04, 2015 at 12:14:51PM -0500, Gene Cumm wrote: > > <snip/>

> On Saturday, January 17, 2015 1:48 AM, Geert Stappers <stappers at stappers.nl> wrote: > > > On Sun, Jan 04, 2015 at 07:37:44PM +0100, Geert Stappers wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 04, 2015 at 12:14:51PM -0500, Gene Cumm wrote: >?????????? <snip/> > > > As far as I can tell, GMail does process the SPF/DKIM/DMARC properties > > > but ignores

Hello Together Please i have new following Error, from DMARC Report, if i check my domain on example mxtoolbox i dont see any problems. Any from you know this Eror report, what i need to do to fix this issue? C:\folder>nslookup 94.237.32.243 Server: dns204.data.ch Address: 211.232.23.124 Name: wursti.dovecot.fi Address: 94.237.32.243

>> Hi Gene: >> Everything that comes from the list goes to my spam >>folder >> because the message looks as >>spam to yahoo. > A simple > filter resolves this: > > Deliver to "Inbox" if > ? To/CC contains "syslinux at zytor.com" Unfortunately no so simple; the Filter option seems to be gone... >> why is not the list >>

Greetings, I have found an issue in the interaction between sieve vacation messages and the SPF, DKIM and DMARC email validation systems. For example, let's say we have a message coming from a at a.com to b at b.com at a server imap.mydomain.com. The account b at b.com has a vacation rule in sieve, and that generates an autoresponse to a at a.com. Our problem begins with the definition

On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 06:51:50 +1300 Andrew Bartlett via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > On Wed, 2018-03-28 at 19:28 +0200, Reindl Harald via samba wrote: > > *every* single message from this mailing list has a reply-to header > > to the poster, independent who is the poster, no other mailing-list > > on planet earth has a reply-to-header - it's that simple

On 2019-09-17 09:06, Miroslav Geisselreiter wrote: > Hi guys, > > when I send e-mails to CentOS mailing list <centos at centos.org>, I > received DMARC / DKIM failure reports. Is it possible to solve this > problem and if so how? > That is why DMARC took 10 years of heated discussions, before it was actually implemented - in first place by big boys who will never

On Wed, 2018-03-28 at 19:28 +0200, Reindl Harald via samba wrote: > *every* single message from this mailing list has a reply-to header to > the poster, independent who is the poster, no other mailing-list on > planet earth has a reply-to-header - it's that simple - period So, e-mail is hard these days, and mailing list e-mail is even harder. Read up about the interactions between

On Wed, 28 Mar 2018 20:49:26 +0200 Reindl Harald via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > > > Am 28.03.2018 um 20:21 schrieb Andrew Bartlett via samba: > > On Wed, 2018-03-28 at 19:11 +0100, Rowland Penny wrote: > >> On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 06:51:50 +1300 > >> Andrew Bartlett via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > >> > >>